The Family Foundation of Virginia earlier today released the following to the media regarding the possible violation of state law by a Roanoke abortion center and the Department of Health. The Family Foundation has filed a petition in Richmond Circuit Court to receive documents from the Department of Health that it has thus far refused to turn over after a FOIA request.

Did Abortion Center Violate Mandatory Reporting Law?

- State officials haven’t responded to FOIA request -

RICHMOND – The Family Foundation of Virginia today filed a petition with the Richmond Circuit Court against the Virginia Department of Health for its failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documentation verifying that the Department of Health fulfilled its legal obligation to report a possible incident of child sexual abuse. The case surrounds a possible violation of the Commonwealth's mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse law by the Roanoke Medical Center for Women. The FOIA request to the Department of Health to determine follow up actions taken by state officials has not been answered in the time required by state law.

Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb files petition for Department of Health documents at Richmond Circuit Court.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, The Family Foundation, for the second time, asked the Department of Health for any correspondence it has regarding whether it had notified law enforcement about the possibility that an incident of child sexual abuse had taken place and had also gone unreported by the Roanoke Medical Center for Women.

"Until evidence to the contrary is presented by the Department of Health, one can only conclude that the abortion center not only violated the state's parental consent law, which is documented, but additionally that the Department of Health failed to fulfill its responsibility to report possible child sexual abuse," said Victoria Cobb, President of The Family Foundation. "Upon completion of the abortion center inspection report, Department of Health officials should have immediately recognized the possible case of abuse and reported it. Even if they somehow missed it, after the situation was brought to its attention by The Family Foundation, the Department of Health has provided no documentation that it took legally required action and now is also stonewalling transparency requests. A request to the Department of Health for documentation revealed that there's no record of any officials investigating whether or not the Roanoke Medical Center fulfilled state law by reporting at least one possible case of child sexual abuse.

"We have parental consent and mandatory reporting laws to protect children from sexual abuse," added Cobb. "It’s not up to the abortion center doctor or staff to make a determination of whether or not abuse took place. That's up to law enforcement. This case involves a girl fourteen years of age. So, regardless of the circumstances, state law was violated and law enforcement officials should have been notified."

In its February 25, 2013 inspection report, the Department of Health revealed instances where underage girls received abortions without evidence of parental consent, including a fourteen-year-old girl:

On 12/18/12 at approximately 9:00 a.m. during a review of clinical records, the survey team discovered 3 (three) of 4 (four) patients who received a procedure to terminate pregnancy were minors and no evidence of parental consent was present in the clinical record. Patient #2 had a procedure to terminate pregnancy in November 2012, and was 16 (sixteen) years of age at the time of the procedure. There was no documentation/evidence in the clinical record of any written informed consent obtained from the parent/guardian of Patient #2 for the procedure. On 12/18/12 at 9:30 a.m., Staff #2 stated, "I don’t know why this one wasn’t done. I don’t know how it slipped through the cracks. ..." Patient #4 had a procedure to terminate pregnancy in December 2012, and was 14 (fourteen) years old at the time of the procedure. There was a document in the clinical record, "Certificate of Acknowledgement — Consent Letter" which had been signed but was not notarized by the facility proving/validating the identity or relationship of the signee as the parent/guardian of Patient #4.

The Code of Virginia (§18.2-63) clearly establishes that it is a crime for any person to

carnally know[], without the use of force, a child thirteen years of age or older but under fifteen years of age. …

Whether the crime is punishable as a felony or Class 4 misdemeanor depends on consent and the age of the offender. Regardless, the Department's inspection report clearly demonstrates that §18.2-63 was violated based on the fact that a fourteen-year-old child obtained an abortion from Roanoke Medical Center for Women. Such possible criminal activity should be reported to the local police department and Commonwealth’s Attorney for investigation to ensure that the child wasn’t a victim of sex abuse, assault, neglect, or sex trafficking.

The Virginia Code (§ 63.2-1509) also establishes mandatory reporters for child abuse and neglect. Any person licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth

shall report the matter immediately to the local department of [Social Services] when the physician ha[s] reason to suspect that child is an abused or neglected child. ...

Virginia Code § 63.2-100 defines "abused or neglected child." Paragraph one of the definition is related to actual or risked physical or mental injury to the child and/or paragraph four of the definition is related to sexual acts upon the child, both of which raise reasonable suspicion that they may meet the definition for an abused or neglected child. This is particularly true for the 14-year-old patient at the Roanoke Medical Center for Women who by statutory definition was the victim of a crime. And clearly, there is reason to suspect that the three children who obtained abortions from the Roanoke Medical Center for Women without parental consent meet the definition of an abused or neglected child.

Stunned at the abortion center's flagrant violations of Virginia law, The Family Foundation submitted a Freedom of Information Act to the Virginia Department of Health on January 31, 2014 seeking documents demonstrating that the department reported these situations, including the possible crime against a 14-year-old child, to law enforcement or the local Department of Social Services. The Interim State Health Commissioner is a licensed physician and subject to the mandatory reporting requirements just as medical staff at the abortion center. The Health Department's response stated that it did "not have any documents that are responsive."

Fourteen days later, we submitted another Freedom of Information Act request to see if our first request had persuaded the Health Department into complying with Virginia law by reporting this crime to law enforcement or the Department of Social Services. Instead of a response, The Family Foundation was greeted with silence. This is surprising because the Health Department is well aware of the statutory requirement to provide within five working days either a response to the Freedom of Information Act request or provide the required notice that they will be invoking a seven working day extension. Today is the 10th working day since the Health Department received our request and we have yet to receive either a response or the required notice that they will be invoking the extension.

"If there is a reasonable explanation for not fulfilling state laws regarding mandatory reporting of child abuse, the citizens of Virginia deserve to know what that is. If the law was followed, why not say so?" asked Cobb.

"Regardless, this situation is further evidence that the abortion industry is completely incapable of policing itself and needs oversight by non-politicized government health officials. They should have already faced fines for not fulfilling state law regarding parental consent, which hasn’t happened. Is the abortion industry so protected by the state that it is allowed to ignore mandatory reporting laws, too? The Board of Health members have been made aware of this situation and we look forward to hearing a response from them and from Department of Health representatives at tomorrow’s Board of Health meeting."

The Roanoke abortion center is owned by W.K.G. and J., Incorporated (the secretary is Marianne Fitzhugh), which also owns the Richmond Medical Center for Women, the Charlottesville Medical Center for Women, and the Peninsula Medical Center for Women. According to 2012 data, these centers performed 11 percent of the abortions in Virginia that year, making it the third largest abortion provider in Virginia after Planned Parenthood and centers owned by infamous Dr. Steven Brigham.

Dr. William Fitzhugh is the only licensed doctor at the Roanoke facility that we can identify on the Board of Medicine website.

Copies of the FOIA requests and court petition are available upon request.

Will Virginia Become Las Vegas? [General Assembly Recap PART 4]

Will Virginia Become Las Vegas? [General Assembly Recap PART 4]

Legislature Approves 11th-Hour Deal for Massive Gambling Bill Plans to "Study" and Make Final Decision in 2020

Besides issues involving life and abortion, this year became the year of gambling. There were at least 15 bills to expand gambling in Virginia, including full-scale Vegas-style casinos in as many as five cities, the legalization of sports betting and online gambling, expansion of the Lottery, and the commercialization of charitable gaming. We had our work cut out for us to educate and provide testimony on the many reasons why these predatory industries are a bad bet for Virginia fiscally, economically, and socially.

With over 50 well-paid lobbyists roaming the Capitol halls on behalf of the gambling interests that flooded the Commonwealth this year, in the end SB 1126 (D-Lucas) was the last bill left standing, and the House and Senate versions of the bill could not be further apart. Then late on a Saturday evening, while no one else was at the Capitol and the session was wrapping up its last full day, the bill's conference committee members met to “resolve” the significant differences in the House and Senate versions.

Unfortunately, and to our great surprise, what they created in this back-room deal was a bill that would seem to satisfy the deep pockets of the numerous gambling interests and billionaire benefactors. The legislature essentially threw the entire gambling 'wishlist' – full-scale casinos in five or more cities, college and professional sports betting, online gambling, etc. – into one giant gambling bill. Only one casino in each city would be allowed, and only investors who can put up a minimum of $200 million in capital investments would qualify. (Hence, why we called this "crony capitalism", with the government granting monopolies to favored parties.)

The bill does require a commission to first “study” the matter and provide a report in only about 7 months from now, but with something of this magnitude, a half-year study is nowhere near long enough to show they're serious. The bill also stipulates that casinos have to be approved by the city residents in a voter referendum, but gives no say to the countless people in the adjacent localities who will also be impacted, while also ignoring the fact that big-money interests will likely pump millions into a local referendum to effectively buy the support they'll need. The bill also requires the legislature to pass the bill again next year in order for it to become law, so at least there is still time to influence legislators on these policies.

This gambling 'omnibus' bill reflects a combination of ‘kicking the can down the road’ to give the General Assembly another year to figure out exactly how much and what kinds of new gambling they want to foist upon Virginians, and also a strong legislative 'tipping of the hand' suggesting that they’re primed to expand gambling in one way or another no matter what this “study” uncovers or recommends.

A big part of the challenge this year was that the General Assembly was so preoccupied with other important matters like the ERA, tax reform, abortion and infanticide, and the improper behavior of our top three elected officials, that there was virtually no time - and no real opportunity provided - to engage in any serious policy discussions on the issues of casinos or sports betting. Much more robust discussions need to take place before the General Assembly thinks about making such a major shift in public policy.

Also noteworthy, HJ 658 (R-Pogge), a Constitutional Amendment we drafted that would have required statewide approval of any casino gambling the legislature were to pass, never made it out of committee. The bill was modeled after Florida, whose citizens voted last November by a 71% margin to put this requirement into their state constitution.

The debate over major new gambling schemes in Virginia is far from over. There is still much work and education to be done on these issues over the next year. Stay tuned as things continue to develop.

More Threats to Religious Freedom Than Ever [General Assembly Update Part 3]

More Threats to Religious Freedom Than Ever [General Assembly Update Part 3]

This year we faced a record-setting 32 bills aimed at advancing the “LGBTQ” agenda, which not only has a corrosive effect on the family and society, but always inevitably leads to conflicts with religious liberty and conscience rights. These bills included attempts to add special rights for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) to virtually every area of the law. (e.g. in housing, employment, businesses, public accommodations, health insurance benefit requirements, apprenticeships, hate crimes, assisted conception/surrogacy, etc.)

Parental Rights: Several Big Wins and a Few Near Wins [2019 General Assembly Recap Part 2]

Medicaid is Crowding-Out Free Clinics

Medicaid is Crowding-Out Free Clinics

The Family Foundation consistently warned that government expansion of Medicaid would increase in demand and cost. But it is also clear now that government expansion of Medicaid is crowding-out charitable and nonprofit organizations currently providing the same service. As more Medicaid eligible patients register, the less patients that free and charitable clinics will have to serve. And without a steady number of patients to serve, free medical clinics will ultimately experience a decline in state and private funding.

WATCH: Eric Metaxes Inspires at 2017 Family Foundation Gala

WATCH: Eric Metaxes Inspires at 2017 Family Foundation Gala

As promised, I wanted you to get the video LINK to The Family Foundation’s 2017 Gala program. If you weren’t there, bestselling author and radio commentator Eric Metaxes kept the attendees of the packed convention room hanging on his every word, and I wanted to make sure you had the chance to see it for yourself. And if you were with us that evening, you’re probably interested in watching it again. Either way, please SHARE THIS with your friends and family.

You will definitely be encouraged by his timely and insightful message to people of faith in an ever-darkening culture.

I also want you to have the chance to hear from me as well, as I spoke about the value and importance of ordinary people “stepping up” in often small but hugely impactful ways. I also share my vision and sense of renewed purpose for The Family Foundation in the challenging years ahead.

If you weren’t able to join us, you will definitely want to watch it now. I hope you will be enlightened, encouraged, and inspired by what you see and hear.

Note to ACLU: Join Us!

Note to ACLU: Join Us!

It’s good when organizations that often find themselves on opposite sides can work together. At The Family Foundation, we’ve sought opportunities to join coalitions of diverse groups on important issues that shouldn’t be partisan. That’s why we’ve worked with groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others on ending the shackling of pregnant prison inmates, and with similar coalitions on financial reparations for victims of eugenics, foster and kinship care issues and others.

So we were thrilled the other day when we saw that the ACLU agrees with The Family Foundation when it comes to following laws regarding the creation and removal of regulations. You see, the federal government has to follow the federal Administrative Procedure Act and Virginia government has to follow the state Administrative Process Act. These laws, as boring and cumbersome as they are, ensure that presidents and governors – or the entities tasked with regulations – cannot act unfettered. It’s a rule of law thing.

Recently we learned that the ACLU is suing President Trump for his decision to undo a requirement that religious entities pay for their employees’ birth control under the ACA. One of the arguments they are making is that the Trump administration violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they allege the interim rules were released without complying with the APA’s notice and public comment requirements.

Coincidentally, that is exactly the argument being made by plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the McAuliffe administration, partially funded by The Family Foundation, after McAuliffe’s Board of Health failed to comply with the state’s APA on not just public comment requirements, but multiple other provisions as well, as it watered down health and safety standards for abortion centers. You see, following the law kinda matters, or at least it should.

Yet, to this point, the ACLU of Virginia has been strangely silent on the McAuliffe administration’s blatant violation of the law, while the ACLU national headquarters has already filed suit against Trump – though whether or not the Trump administration actually did violate APA is a matter of great question.

I’ll go on record now to say if President Trump violated the federal APA, his policy decision should be reversed and put through the proper legal channels. You see, it shouldn’t matter who the executive is or if you agree or disagree with the ultimate policy in question. The law should be followed to get to the desired end. Given the ACLU’s history of, well, let’s just say less than accurate legal arguments, I’m not super confident that their case against the President has merit, but time will tell.

I can tell you that there is no question the McAuliffe administration violated the law, numerous times. So, it would seem, if the rule of law matters to the ACLU as much as they claim, they should be joining our lawsuit any day now.